To the Editor:
Re “Silicon Valley Is Bracing for a Permanent Underclass,” by Jasmine Sun (Opinion guest essay, May 3):
Ms. Sun’s sobering account of Silicon Valley’s private fears deserves a closer look at what it quietly reveals: that the coming disruption may finally force us to value what we have long undervalued.
For decades, the care economy — teaching, nursing, child care and elder care — has been treated as a secondary sector, essential but economically marginal. A.I. cannot replicate the human presence at the heart of these roles.
If automation displaces millions from formal and technical knowledge work, the question is not simply how we support those workers, but also whether we finally recognize care work as a primary driver of both human well-being and economic life and as a different kind of knowledge work.
Jack Clark of the Anthropic Institute gestures at this when he suggests expanding relational roles rather than simply writing unemployment checks. But he understates the scale of the opportunity.
A genuine reorientation toward the care economy is not a consolation prize for displaced workers. It is a structural choice about what kind of economy we want. Do we want one that measures value by human connection and dignity and not just productivity and profit?
This means public investment in care infrastructure such as subsidized child care, appropriately staffed programs and living wages for those who do this work, funded in part by government and productivity gains from automation itself.
A.I.’s disruption may be the force that finally makes that structural choice available to us. The question is whether we are bold enough to make it.
James A. Lomastro Conway, Mass. The writer is a retired health care policy analyst and an advocate who focuses on aging and disability services, A.I. governance and the economics of care.
To the Editor:
Re “An Attack on OpenAI’s Chief Sends a Terrifying Message,” by Aaron Zamost (Opinion guest essay, April 23):
I think the United States needs an F.D.A.-like agency to oversee all aspects of artificial intelligence. The F.D.A. serves a very useful purpose by granting approval to pharmaceutical products, determining whether they are safe and effective. This F.D.A. certification allows them to be sold in the United States and abroad. It benefits both the pharmaceutical industry and the public at large.
The A.I. industry needs similar certification, as does the public. This proposed agency should be preceded by a wide-ranging investigative body to assess exactly what should be regulated and how, composed of tech officials and well-known commentators on technology. This is the only way to assure the public of A.I.’s safety, and would therefore greatly benefit the industry’s projected expansion.
Alan McGowan New York
To the Editor:
Re “Scientists Fear A.I.’s Capability to Design Biological Weapons” (front page, April 30):
I think we sensed that flooding the population with A.I. free of any guardrails was not much different from putting a loaded gun in the hands of a child. Bad outcomes were assured.
My primary concern had been how A.I. was harvesting the past work of writers, artists, journalists, filmmakers, etc., and erasing their futures. Now I can worry about biological weapons being developed and deployed by readily available information on a chatbot.
History has shown us time and again that when we are faced with an instrument capable of creating mass carnage, relying on mankind’s good intentions is never enough.
A.I. can be a lethal weapon. We must control its existence.
Robert Wagner New York
Frequent Redistricting
To the Editor:
The redistricting battles in Democratic- and Republican-led states have focused on one important issue: who will control Congress. Left out of the discussion is an unintended consequence of redistricting of congressional lines more than once every 10 years as was done in the past.
Members of Congress are effective when they know their communities. If a congressional district keeps changing boundaries, the members won’t get to know their districts. They will be representing new people, new districts and new communities every two or four years.
Members of Congress will shift their focus from constituent service to survival (even more so than now). That could mean less focus on the district they were elected to represent and more focus on anticipated new boundaries of the congressional district they might run for in the next election.
What is happening in our country, involving both parties, is bad for democracy.
Paul Feiner Greenburgh, N.Y. The writer is the Greenburgh town supervisor.
The post The Great Disruption: How A.I. Will Shape Our Future appeared first on New York Times.
